carlfense

How? By pumping the refined fuels back North. LOL. Ummmm. No. Keep telling yourself that You realize that the refineries buy the oil and refine it and then do with it what they want with it. If the export market calls for it, they will ship it. If the market in the US calls for it, they will pump it into the US market. Is there a large untapped market for fuel oil in the United States?

It wasn't the government that pushed and pulled and scratched to approve riskier and riskier loans. This podcast from npr in 2008 does the best job that I've seen of summarizing the main factors in about an hour. All in all, it's pretty damn infuriating. http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

I suspect that there isn't much disagreement on that issue.

Some of them, sure. But the one that you refer to as being financially responsible is also a Dem. Exactly. It's quite the opposite, actually as CA has quite high taxes on the rich.

He should have invaded a couple more countries with no exit plan. Iran for sure . . . and maybe North Korea?

He's done pretty damn well for the first six years . . . I'd imagine that every GOP contender would love to switch situations with Hillary.

Yikes. Between that and what is sure to be an endless push by the GOP congress to weaken/kill Dodd-Frank . . . and it's almost like no one learned anything.

CA does seem to be in a much better place . . . but the reality is that they were hit unusually hard by the recession and this bounce back in large part just reflects the broader economic recovery. This is why it's such a contrast with the situation in Kansas. Kansas was not hit nearly as hard by the recession . . . but they've chosen to give benefits to their wealthiest residents at the expense of everyone else. In other words, a large part of the problem in California was underlying economic factors while the problems in Kansas were conscious choices by the Republican party.

That's a pretty decent analogy. FWIW, I've run across two bad cops and last I heard both are working in a different field.

This isn't a subjective issue.Good on the 62% of "hardcore liberals" with strong moral values. Letting innocent people die by sticking to their strong moral values. Oh. You think torture works. Gotcha.

Oskar Blues will be available in Nebraska tomorrow.

This isn't a subjective issue. Good on the 62% of "hardcore liberals" with strong moral values.

Because what the GOP really wants to do with Social Security is so unpopular (even among their own voters) that the only way they can accomplish their goals is to make it look like they are required.

If we're cherry picking we could talk about Democratically controlled California's giant budget surplus compared to GOP Kansas' spiraling deficit.

Is it tough to maintain your beliefs given recent tax increases and economic results? I suspect that this statement is quite a useful clue as to the answer to my previous question.

Well, pardon me for actually defending something that I wish wasn't political. It is an extremely complicated issue. The way I understand it from the short little bit I have read today on this there are two ways of doing it: A) The current way - which takes proposed legislation and projects what will happen going forward basically in a vacuum. This doesn't take into account affects the legislation has on the greater economy and how that affects tax income...etc. B) Dynamic Scoring - This tries to take into account how legislation affects the bigger picture and in turn, how it affects the budget and tax income. Well.....to me, (A) is much more clean cut and relatively easier to do. There are fewer variables. But, as we all know, legislation DOES affect the greater economy, tax revenue and the budget. So, in essence, what the CBO is putting out now, we all know is technically not what is going to happen. (B) on the other hand, is very difficult to do and certain legislation done at one point in time may have a different reaction in the economy than it would at a different time. It is much more (as the name implies) dynamic. So, to me, neither is perfect and if I were a manager trying to make a decision, I would want to see both projections. I'll agree that both are flawed but option B seems to be a lot more susceptible to juking the stats. I'll put a marker out there: if our CBO scorekeeper is forced to adopt partisan voodoo economics the Republican congress is going to focus primarily on fiscal policy that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans. (Just kidding. That's what they're going to do regardless . . . but I suspect that they'll try to cloak it in their feigned interest in fiscal responsibility.)

Didn't Byrd renounce his prior actions and apologize repeatedly? I don't believe that Scalise has apologized beyond saying that it was a mistake that he regrets before promptly turning it into an attack on his political opponents. Again, I think that the focus by some on actions pre-civil rights era is awfully revealing. It's almost like we aren't supposed to care about recent history. Weird.

Which one? Fresh squeezed, I need to find pinedrops or whitewater somewhere now. Also had a brew made with crab apples. Like you would expect from crab apples. Fresh Squeezed is fantastic.

Which one?

+1. This is probably the best option. AtB, do you have much experience with guns?

That's it?! If I had to guess I bet I'm around $1,000 for everything. Bet you didn't spend that all in two days . . .

At least Riley's "guys" seem to be otherwise successful football coaches and not HS golf coaches . . . or whatever that story was.